Cover Photo Credit: Graphic by Mason Tozer.
For preventing overpopulation of our mother Earth,
and for making life for those who do populate her
significantly more enjoyable.
It is no surprise, to any well-informed person with even the slightest inclination toward up-to-dateness, that the world is vastly overpopulated. Climate change has been in the news for decades; with more people born each day, our impact will continue to veer toward catastrophe. Recent youth climate strikes took place in over one hundred countries globally. Coupled with growing youth nihilism and disinterest in politics and religion, this points the rational observer to conclude that these children wish not to have been born.
In this global landscape of climate terror, Canada continues to lead the way with innovative climate change solutions. We were the first country to begin calling our Albertan tar pits “oil sands,” because it sounded amicable, more Canadian. We may build pipelines, but we tax them heavily. The worse they are for the environment, the more we tax them. Unless they go through Saskatchewan. Or Alberta. It is true that we host massive international mining companies, but it is simultaneously true that we continue to research green mining possibilities. If there is a way to change absolutely nothing, while leading the world toward a greener future, we will find it. That’s the Canadian promise.
Canada has always been a pioneer of progressive movements. It is in this glorious and free land that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights have always been some of the most advanced worldwide. We decriminalized same-sex relationships as early as 1969. Many Canadians still remember the historic day, back in 2005, when we legalized same-sex marriage. Some might see it as a weakness that Canada regulated and criminalized its citizens’ sexual activity for 101 years, but in light of this proposal, I pray we see it as a strength. Canada has successfully prescribed what a healthy, legal sexual relationship between two consenting adults can look like before. We can do it again.
I shall now humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.
The proposal, simply put, is this: criminalize heterosexual relationships in order to halt reproduction and save the earth from imminent environmental ruin.
The state has always regulated the family. When we needed population growth, we prescribed the heteronormative model, which is simply outdated and no longer serves our country’s needs.
Current solutions to climate change involve changing the behaviour of people who already exist: banning plastic straws, promoting recycling, going vegan, or re-popularizing the vintage aesthetic. Climate activists note that while these options are helpful, individual life choices appear futile compared to the massive pollution and environmental degradation multinational corporations commit. Canada cannot afford the GDP deficiency that would occur were we to stop our multinational corporations from maximizing profit, so we must find a way to return focus to the individual. And it is true that nothing produces carbon like a human being.
A Canadian offspring will produce 515 tonnes of excess carbon in its lifetime. An individual would have to go vegan 286 times over to save the same amount of carbon one could save simply by not reproducing. If a heterosexual couple were to fly a first class round trip from Toronto to Paris 73 times, they still would have a smaller carbon footprint than they would by creating one single offspring. A couple could literally erect a miniature fracking site in their backyard, export the excess oil via petroleum tanker, overfill the tanker, and have it spill into the ocean covering innocent wildlife in toxic waste, and still use less carbon than their potential offspring.
At first glance, this proposal may seem a considerable sacrifice for the Canadian heterosexual populace. However, by deciding to create a child from their own DNA, heterosexual couples are simultaneously acting selfishly and condemning others to suffering. An outside observer with no connection to the couple may be compelled to ask: what qualities of these individuals make them suitable for procreation? Rather than ask such complicated questions that would nevertheless end in vile popularity politics (or eugenics, blech!), I implore the stand-up, hardworking citizens of Canada to do the right thing. Make this small sacrifice so the rest of the world may prosper. It is simple utilitarianism: if asked to choose between your unborn baby, who statistically could turn out to be a serial killer, and the future of all other babies on earth, would you make the right choice?
The incidental benefits to this proposal abound, the most obvious being a booming privatized adoption industry. Also, marriages will be strengthened. It is shameful how often couples who do not truly love each other “stay together for the kids.” If couples could no longer conceive accidentally, they would eliminate worries about staying together out of obligation. Rather, couples would only stay together if they are really in love. Couples who choose to adopt children would be subject to in-depth consultations and long waiting periods during which they would figure out whether they were compatible before the child even enters the picture. Another benefit to same-sex relationships would be that the history of sexism will not threaten to topple everything you have built together at every corner. As for my humble personal experience, I can confidently say that quite frankly same-sex couples love harder than anyone I know. Lesbians write sonnets for their partners every morning. Gay men will bottom for their partners even after Taco Bell. The gays love with unrivalled intensity. It’s a fact.
Next, there will be no more abortions and pro-lifers can just shut up about it already. How many countless hours of congress’ time have been wasted on this hitherto unsolvable women’s issue? Well, no longer. With the eradication of pregnancy comes the eradication of abortion. Abort abortions! Finally, we can move on.
There is one final incidental benefit to this plan, involving Canada’s multicultural identity. We must remember Canada is composed of immigrants; it is truly our home on native land. Settler Canadians should never have populated this land to begin with. Having so recently signed the Truth and Reconciliation Act, it is an intelligent idea for our government to take an actionable step toward reconciliation.
So, let me humbly introduce a sub-proposal: regulate relationships for all Canadian citizens, but do not regulate Indigenous relationships. In the same way that homonormativity is a correction for years of heteronormativity, this reverse discrimination will act as a first step toward reparations. In the ‘60s, government officials may have wrongfully removed Indigenous children from their homes and placed them in white foster families, but now the government will only allow reproductive, heterosexual relationships in Indigenous communities. They can also be allowed whatever other style of relationship they choose, because who are we settlers to regulate Indigenous lives?
Some may say my proposal is absurd. It is absurd to force people to choose a different sexuality. It is absurd for the true North strong and free to be populated entirely with immigrants and Indigenous folk. What about the great-great ancestors of the very first settlers? How in our right minds will we celebrate Thanksgiving? To all these puerile critics, I plead you listen to European philosopher Albert Camus. Camus appeals for us to see our existence for what it is: a satire, a serious take on the ultimate absurd. For too long, we have acted like procreation, passing on our legacy through DNA, is an important mission to complete before we pass on ourselves. We take comfort in the fact that something of us will carry on into the Future after we die. It is irrational, yes, but irrationality, human nostalgia, and the absurd are the three characters in the drama of existence[1]. I am only asking you now to method act for the absurd; let irrationality and nostalgia become the backup dancers in this musical we call life. Following Camus, I implore each self-respecting member of the Canadian citizenry to make this statement: “conscious that I cannot stand aloof from my time, I have decided to be an integral part of it.[2] ”
It is now time to discuss contingency plans. First, it seems logical that there would be some pushback against this plan upon immediate implementation. The question then becomes: how do we keep people from disobeying? How do we keep people gay, or at the very least, keep their sexualities hidden away in the rhetorical straight cupboard? I am obliged to remind the skeptical reader that this is all for the greater good.
The first and easiest way to enforce homosexuality is to avoid teaching straight sex in primary education. Erect a curriculum where only digital stimulation, anal, or oral sex is represented. Treat missionary position as a plague never to be discussed. Separate the students by sex so that they never have to learn about the “other” genitalia. The less they know the better, for their own good and the good of the country.
Next, we must implement a rule that declares attraction to a member of the opposite sex obligates “coming out” to peers and family. This would be an emotional hurdle that most people would be unable to overcome, thus keeping their dangerous sexual urges to themselves.
If people do manage to escape the cupboard, there are many options for shaming them into submission. The simplest and historically most effective corrective treatment is shock therapy. The government could purchase this technology from the Catholics at a discount, since their methods will have become obsolete. (Pray the straight away? Absurd.) Then the government could sell shock therapy sessions to concerned parents, psychologists, or other community leaders, thus not only scaring straights into homosexual relationships, but also procuring a profit. Alternatively, we make the straights feel ostracized by forcing them to wear a symbol on their clothes to signify their Otherness. Some suggestions for this symbol include an upright beige triangle or a greyscale flag.
Aside from such tangible efforts, there are also intangible techniques that might be implemented to ensure homosexuality. Immediately, the Canadian government could launch a hegemonic campaign establishing the normalcy of gay and lesbian relationships. All members of parliament should be encouraged to flaunt their healthy and successful same-sex relationships, and as soon as humanly possible, Prime Minister Carney should organize an address from his first lad. As much as can be controlled, all new cultural products—from Oscar-worthy movies to teenie-bopper gossip magazines—should prioritize stories with gay and lesbian protagonists. If there must be a straight character, they should be ostracized and should not have a love interest. It might be a sensible idea to execute a prominent straight figure, like Ryan Gosling or Drake, just to be on the safe side. If such intangible tactics are performed skillfully, very little state intervention or violence will be required. Ideally, homosexuality will become so entrenched in the typical Canadian ethos that a straight person’s peers will ostracize them or even commit violence against them to maintain Canada’s peace and order.
For any stubborn laggard who is still unconvinced, I ask you this: What other option do we have?
Contraception has long been heralded as an effective way to regulate population, but diaphragms alone cannot change an entire country’s perception of reproduction. The condom was invented in 1839, and populations have only grown exponentially since. Spermicide was invented in 1906, and it did nothing to prevent that century’s massive baby boom. The pill was invented in 1950, and yet there are 71 million millennials running around polluting the earth. Contraception alone simply won’t cut it. We need more than just a method to avoid pregnancy; we need a nation who is psychologically incapable of considering the type of relationship that would allow them to reproduce.
It is not lost on me that there will be at least one reader of this fine proposal who wonders if China’s one child policy is not some kind of middle ground between the status quo and my proposition. I feel it is my duty to remind this reader that even one child is too many. The UN’s most recent climate report gives us twelve years until our climate is irreversibly changed. Ultimately, Canada, along with at least America, Britain, and Australia will need to halt births immediately and for the foreseeable future for us to stand a fighting chance. This proposal is given under the hopes that once Canada leads the way, some, if not all, of these other countries will follow.
O Canada… We stand on guard for thee.
[1] (26). Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus, London: Penguin Books, 1975.
[2] (83). Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus, London: Penguin Books, 1975.
